LEVESON - LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE KNEW PORTUGUESE POLICE LEAKS WERE UNTRUE

I know he is an unknown in the States, Tony, but he is the crime correspondent for Sky here - he has an audience of millions, who regard him almost as some kind of official.

Look around any of the forker sites, and you will see them quoting 'Brunty' on the subject of bags and DNA, as if every word of his is Gospel truth.

He has, IMO, done dreadful damage.

bb1 wrote:I know he is an unknown in the States, Tony, but he is the crime correspondent for Sky here - he has an audience of millions, who regard him almost as some kind of official.

Look around any of the forker sites, and you will see them quoting 'Brunty' on the subject of bags and DNA, as if every word of his is Gospel truth.

He has, IMO, done dreadful damage.

And it's one of his Blogs that they are mouthing off on.

It is indeed, Sabot - it is on the Brunty blog that the most disgusting abuse - apart from twitter - from the likes of emu and her chums appears.

The only saving grace is that their mess is cleaned up regularly, but why it is allowed in the first place escapes me.

bb1 wrote:It is indeed, Sabot - it is on the Brunty blog that the most disgusting abuse - apart from twitter - from the likes of emu and her chums appears.

The only saving grace is that their mess is cleaned up regularly, but why it is allowed in the first place escapes me.

Well, if that is his blog, it shows what kind man he is.

bb1 wrote:It is indeed, Sabot - it is on the Brunty blog that the most disgusting abuse - apart from twitter - from the likes of emu and her chums appears.

The only saving grace is that their mess is cleaned up regularly, but why it is allowed in the first place escapes me.

Me too, Bonny. Sky is pandering to these vile people. Some fantastic image, eh what.
And Amazon.
I can only assume that they are both afraid of losing custom, although who would want that pathetic lot as Customers is a mystery.

There are plenty of firms providing online shopping that DON'T give a free platform to these people - unlike Amazon, which has some nerve calling itself an ethical company.

Tony's right - what does it say about Brunt that he endorses the nightly rampages by emu and the rest of them?

Don't forget Brunty's the one who tried setting Murat up with another lawyer, but only if he didn't tell his own lawyer. His phone coversations with Murat are very interesting reading.
Sneaky little scruff bag, thought he was getting info from the PJ, when he was being set up as the idiot, all along

Oh, so he did, I had completely forgotten about that, Maggs!

Here it is:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRUNT_MURAT.htm

I'm just rereading that - what on earth was Brunt playing at? It's a good job Murat didn't bite, or he would have been in even more trouble.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/i-am-sure-we-will-all-remember-lies.html

Know what's really amazing? That the forkers willingly choose to believe lies, and enjoy embellishing the lies, even though the lies have been exposed long ago.

Then they wonder why no-one listens to a word they have to say.

That is why I spend the majority of my time laughing at them, Bonny.

I don't know why they think anything is going to change if they keep on saying the same, wrong things as they have been saying for nearly five years, Tony. If it was wrong the first time they said it, it is not going to miraculously become correct when they say it for the 10,000th time.

Every day is Groundhog Day for them - tick tock, the tide is turning, slowly slowly catchee monkey, withheld files, Amaral has an Ace up his Sleeve...

If they weren't so ghastly, one could almost feel sorry for them. Almost....

Remember this one?

'Wife-swopping' holidays
Now what couple was it that did the wife-swopping?
Oh, I remember, Sofia and Goncalo.

Oh yes....more projection.

crazytony wrote:Remember this one?

'Wife-swopping' holidays
Now what couple was it that did the wife-swopping?
Oh, I remember, Sofia and Goncalo.

Interesting, Tony. That thought hadn't crossed my mind. But you are right. The Amarals were the only Swingers involved in this case. What a hoot.

Ah yes. The polite(r) version of events:

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t1796-oh-dear-gonc-has-been-caught-at-it-again-or-gonc-in-public-brawl-after-husband-of-lover-kos-him-in-bar

And the Gonc fan club really ought to remember, that all this was confirmed in the Golden Bullets tape.

Which both Ironside and Morais then confirmed was genuine.

If the fools stood back for a moment and really looked at their hero Amaral; they would find he is nothing but a shyster.
He has been divorced twice, the McCanns weren't around for the first so they can't be blamed for that one.
He drove drunk with his five year old child in the vehicle, again not the McCanns fault.
And he brought hired thugs in to beat a confession out of a woman.
Hang on a minute, did he say he wrote his book to recover his dignity, what freeking dignity?!

Oh my God. How on earth did I miss that one. I could have had a field day with it if I had known.

Still, not to worry. It's never too late. And I am All a Twitter about now.

The whole world is going to hear about Gonc's non-existent 'honor' in a bit over a week, Tony - his ill-advised complaint against Marco Correia and António Pedro Dores is supposed to start on the 29th.

I should think the Portuguese tabloids will be planning to print extra copies, as both Gonc's brother and ex-wife are due to testify against him.

Wonderful Bonny, just wonderful

I really, really hope Gonc is foolish enough to go ahead with this legal action, Tony; I can think of few things someone in his position could do, that are STUPIDER than starting a court action about his 'honor'.

I wonder if he has actually paid ANYTHING to the brother he cheated out of a house?

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t3832-gonc-s-debts-and-brothers-court-case

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/28/leveson-madeleine-mccann-dna-police


Leveson inquiry: ex-police chief defends not preventing false McCann DNA reports

Matthew Baggott says it was correct 'not to put the record straight' over false reports about Madeleine McCann case

Lisa O'Carroll
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 March 2012 18.40 BST

The UK police were right not to "put the record straight" over false reports claiming Gerry and Kate McCann were implicated in their daughter's disappearance, the Leveson inquiry has heard.

Matthew Baggott, the former chief constable of Leicestershire police, told the inquiry on Wednesday he could not have released information about DNA tests conducted in the UK to counter leaks by the Portuguese police that falsely claimed they showed the McCanns had hidden Madeleine in the boot of a hire car in Portugal.

Baggott said there were both legal and professional reasons for this. Portuguese secrecy laws made it "utterly wrong to have somehow, in an off-the-record way, have breached what was a very clear legal requirement upon the Portuguese themselves", he told Lord Justice Leveson.

He also said the Leicestershire force's priority was to maintain a positive relationship with the Portuguese police, with a view to "eventually ... resolving what happened to that poor child".

Last November the Leveson inquiry heard how the Daily Express reported there was DNA evidence that could show the little girl's body had been stored in the spare tyre well of a hire car.

It turned out the analysis conducted in the UK was "inconclusive" and there was no foundation for making that allegation. Express Newspapers paid £550,000 damages to the McCann's in 2008 for inaccurate reporting by the Daily Express and the publisher's three other titles.

Leveson asked Baggot about evidence submitted by a Daily Star crime reporter two weeks ago that the Leicestershire police "knew perfectly well that the results didn't demonstrate that", and could have given off-the-record briefings to British journalists not to report a DNA link.

"Even with the benefit of hindsight, sir, I'm still convinced we did the right thing and I think integrity and confidence, particularly with the Portuguese, featured very highly in our decision-making at that time," said Baggott.

He added: "So the relationship of trust and confidence would have been undermined if we had gone off the record in some way or tried to put the record straight, contrary to the way in which the Portuguese law was configured and their own leadership of that."

When they appeared before Leveson late last year, Gerry and Kate McCann told how they were left distraught by false claims in the UK press that they were responsible for their daughter's disappearance or her death.

Leveson later accused the Daily Express of writing "complete piffle" and "tittle tattle" about Madeleine McCann.

------------------------

Pity 'hindsight' has proven him totally wrong, isn't it?

Maybe if he had told the truth at the time, then the likes of Bennett and co would not still be trying to torment the McCanns and others.

Maintaining a positive relationship with the PJ has been proven to be the very worst thing he could have done.

He should have spoken out and told the truth, IMO.

Even without the benefit of hindsight I think a number of senior officers at Leicester Police must have been fully aware at the time that the PJ were not respecting their own secrecy laws. I wonder were any discussions held between the PJ and LP over that and if not why not?

They must have been 100% aware that the PJ were giving off the record briefings and could have used that fact to account for the need for any such briefings which might have been given by the LP to the UK press. It sounds to me that the LP were scared of any possible reaction if they had gone ahead and done the decent thing.

Good points, Greenink.

I wonder how Baggott felt after Amaral 'retired' from the PJ and started talking about how he was having the UK police followed, etc?

My own opinion is that saying nothing was a mistake with far reaching consequences; if he had spoken out, then I doubt if all the Dogs don't lie nonsense would still have been going on.

And what about Madeleine herself? His silence left a vacuum for the campaign against her parents, and to interfere with efforts to find her, to gather speed.

IMO, Baggott did a very, very bad thing in not speaking out; his relations with the PJ were NOT of paramount importance, especially as the PJ ignored their own rules.

And had UK officers followed....

If I remember correctly, the British Forensic Science Department did issue a denial to the 100% count but, by then it was too late; the Portuguese Judiciary had already got the attention they wanted.